Your name is on the article, but the citation doesn't tell the whole story. Maybe you developed the study question, designed the analysis, or spent months bringing several parts of the manuscript together. A reviewer sees the author list and has to decide what, if anything, to infer from it.
Don't leave the explanation entirely to inference. The book's publication examples include both individual and coauthored work. When collaborative scholarship matters in your review, a clear account of your contribution can help readers understand the record without diminishing the people who worked with you.
Describe the work you actually did.
Use concrete responsibilities rather than a vague statement that you contributed substantially. You might have developed the conceptual framework, designed the study, coordinated data collection, completed a particular analysis, or led a defined part of the writing and revision.
Choose descriptions supported by the project record and consistent with any published contribution statement. Don't add responsibilities later because they sound more impressive in a promotion narrative. Accuracy matters more than finding the strongest possible verb.
When several people shared a responsibility, say so. A contribution doesn't become less real because it was collaborative.
Explain conventions instead of assuming readers know them.
Author-order practices vary across fields and projects. A reader from another discipline may interpret first, last, or alphabetical placement differently. Where relevant and permitted, explain the convention used for the work and then identify your role directly.
Don't claim that an author position always proves leadership. The account needs to fit the actual project. If the institution requests a particular contribution format or supporting statement, follow that process rather than inventing a percentage of credit that no one agreed to.
The goal is to make the contribution understandable, not to divide a shared accomplishment into artificial personal ownership.
Show development across collaborations.
If your role changed over several projects, describe that progression. Perhaps you initially contributed specialized analysis and later helped develop the broader research direction. Explain the shift with specific examples rather than simply declaring increasing independence.
Independence and collaboration don't have to be treated as opposites. Your institution's criteria determine what needs to be demonstrated. A well-explained collaborative record can show your intellectual contribution without pretending the work happened in isolation.
Be careful with outcomes too. The article's publication, later use, and influence are separate from the tasks you performed. Describe each with the appropriate evidence instead of assuming the publication's reputation automatically establishes your individual impact.
Keep the narrative and the list consistent.
Check author names, order, title, status, and dates against the actual publication record. If one section calls a manuscript accepted and another lists it as published, resolve the difference using the reporting rules and relevant date.
Don't turn a contribution statement into a dispute with collaborators inside the dossier. If there is a genuine disagreement about credit, seek the appropriate institutional guidance and address it through the relevant process.
Start with three coauthored outputs that matter to your case. Write one or two factual sentences about your responsibility in each and check them against the records. A reviewer should finish those sentences knowing what you brought to the work, while still seeing the collaboration clearly.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, chapter 17, pp. 344–348.
